In the last decade, mobile phones have become powerful entertainment hubs as well intimate and inseparable companions.

Our everyday life has been ineluctably transformed.

In the same period however, European mobile operators seems to have gone through little transformation, as if the advent of new players – such as Apple or Google – the pace of technological innovation and the tangibility of convergence had not affect them.

In this context, is it fair to bet that, in 2015, the mobile telephony market in Europe will look the same? Not so sure…

Below are some plausible scenarios.

[Note: The aim of this exercise is not to predict the future, but to generate a healthy debate about the mobile industry; I don’t necessarily agree with each of these scenarios which are in no particular orders and may or may not be related; last, each of these scenarios have different probabilities that have not been disclosed in this document].

Scenario One: a ferocious price war on voice tariffs

The mobile operator industry is oligopolistic for obvious reasons, let alone regulatory and infrastructure-related ones. Consequently, price war is unlikely to happen.

Still, voice tariffs are bound to decrease dramatically.

First, users are keen to ditch landline telephones, and keep a lifelong mobile telephone number.

Second, many Europeans travel within the Continent or know – and thus call – people who live abroad. In Europe, the proximity of so many countries, which in turn have a variety of mobile operators, makes the region an inefficient if not dysfunctional place in the eye of consumers.

Last, inexpensive voice over IP is bound to take off. To compete with Skype tariffs, operators will have to substantially modify their prices.

If voice tariffs fall radically, economies of scale and geographical penetration will be key, thus favouring mergers between mobile operators.

Scenario Two: a new approach to infrastructure management

Is the management of cellular infrastructures the core competence of mobile operators? Or should they focus on customer services and innovation?

When operators’ geographical coverages are identical, they do not bring added value or differentiation in consumers’ mind. In this case, could cellular masts be built, maintained and operated by an independent body, like a rail track network is separated from the business of running railway companies?

In the future, a single cellular network with multiple frequency bands would be built by an operating company that could be state-owned, a joint venture between mobile operators or owned by a third party such as an infrastructure private equity fund, the likes of Ericsson or Alcatel-Lucent, mobile handset manufacturers… or even Google.

Scenario Three: supermarket chains become WiFi operators

Grocery retailers run numerous outlets, including in city centres, that could all offer wifi access on a nationwide basis. Those with tariff plans that limit access to the mobile Internet, such as students, would wait to be close to a local Tesco or Carrefour in order to download an online magazine or email documents.

Mobile operators would see data consumption declining on their 3G/4G networks, whilst retail groups would be able to generate ancillary revenue and provide added-value services to customers.

Scenario Four: Mobile operators become marketing platforms

With mobile phones becoming the core of anyone’s digital activities – from buying goods to interacting with friend, watching television or reading the news – mobile operators have access to invaluable data around usage and location.

If they manage to be perceived as a trusted and lifelong partner by customers, they could become hugely efficient marketing and loyalty platforms by operating for example well-refined addressable advertising systems. They could for example sell advertising spaces to brands by providing precise demographics. Apple had already launched the iAd platform (see first results analysed by Nielsen)… but think of the sophisticated level of data a Vodafone or Orange can have with their millions of customers in Europe.

One could even think that a mobile operator could end up acquiring Groupon.

Scenario Five: Mobile operators become banks

The same goes with money transfer: mobile operators could apply for a banking license, or partner with the likes of VISA or Mastercard, in order to provide payment system from and to mobile phones. These transactions could happen between customers or between customers and corporations; in the mobile ecosystem, or between mobile phone and payment terminals in the “physical world” – think of paying a parking ticket at the till. Starbucks has recently launched such a mobile payment system in some of their outlets.

Again, think of all the transactions that could be run on millions of mobile handsets. Even a minuscule transaction fee as a percentage could generate substantial revenue. Facebook knows this very well, hence its plans for a proprietary money transfer system.

Scenario Six: Apple licenses its mobile operating system and iTunes platform

With unfounded – but still plausible – rumours around the respective rapprochement of RIM with Google’s operating system and Nokia with Microsoft’s Windows Phone 7 (since this post was published, a deal was cut by Microsoft and Nokia), Apple might be tempted one day to authorise third parties to use it OS and its iTunes payment system.

By doing so, they would increase the numbers of transactions on iTunes, which could, in turn, become the industry standard for online payment.

Licenses would be granted to a couple of mobile manufacturers, but also to other hardware producers, such as Hi-Fi equipments or car manufacturers.

Scenario Seven: Google charges handset manufacturers for the use of Android

Google essentially makes money out of search-related advertisement. By conceiving and developing Android, and then licensing it for free, Google’s aim is to have millions of handsets that use Google’s search engine by default. However, Google has a dominant share of market in search, regardless of the mobile operating system (with the notable exception of Windows Mobile and its link to Bing). In the long term, why would Google continue to provide for free a top operating system?

Scenario Eight: Nokia abandons Symbian or makes it a joint venture

Developing a best-of-class mobile operating system must be a Sisyphean endeavour. Nokia, mostly a hardware manufacturer, could decide to sell a portion of Symbian to a consortium of software companies such as IBM, HP or Accenture. However, would a joint venture the best way to take swift strategic and investment decisions in such a competitive and fast-moving landscape? What seems clear is, in case Nokia does not decide to join a competing operating system, they need to find partners for upgrading Symbian.

Your reactions are welcome.

PS : There are three key topics that I have not specifically addressed in this article:

–       4G: because all operators will launch it

–       NFC: because all handset manufacturers will launch it

–       The complex issue of who will pay for the huge growth of Internet traffic and the related debate around the Net neutrality: AT Kearney brilliantly covered this matter in a report that they recently published (“A Viable Future Model for the Internet”).

One of my colleagues recently spotted a man in a supermarket with his shopping list… on an iPad!

His comment was: “he looked like a twat”.

I am tempted to agree with this qualification: using an iPad in such an ostentatious way says more about pretention and social status than usefulness and practicality.

But then, since I am over forty, am I suddenly too old school to appreciate the temerity of such a “modern” attitude? Should I be considered as a conservative and grumpy old man, allergic to technological innovation and behavioural shifts?

Does it mean that, if I had been in my forties in 1977, I would have despised the first punk bands? Arg!

Humans, like societies, should evolve. But surely, there seem to be a limit to continuous modernisation, no?

Can we step back for a moment in order to attempt to put the Net and all related digital novelties into historical context? Let me draw your attention to two books I read in 2010.

The Judgement of Paris, by Ross King, tells the story of Edouard Manet, the impressionist painter who had to relentlessly fight for decades – and until his death – the French art establishment, which is epitomised by the richest and most successful painter in the 19th century, Jean-Louis-Ernest Meissonier.

The author reveals the following anecdote about Meissonier:

He detested the sight of railways stations, cast-iron bridges, modern architecture, and recent fashions such as top hats. He did not like how people sat cross-legged [in trains] and read newspapers instead of leather-bound books”.

Indeed, at that time, reading newspapers in trains was considered as uneducated by the aristocracy and the haute bourgeoisie!

So, when we mock the supermarket iPad chap… aren’t we just old farts like this Meissonier?

Another insightful book, which also touches on the issue of modernity and its disruptive effects on society, is The Vertigo Years: Change And Culture In The West 1900-1914 by Philipp Blom. The author reviews the revolutions and invention that substantially transformed Western European societies, from the emancipation of women to the mechanisation of work, through to artistic innovations in ballet, painting and sculpture, the advent of Freud, the Russian revolution or the discovery of uranium, to name but a few.

The author quotes Count Harry Kessler, an Anglo-German art patron and activist:

Modernity is a problem.

How to reconcile with the soul the enormous mass of new.

The particular character of today lies in the fact that no other time had to conquer such a multitude of elements“.

These comments dates from April 1903… but it is entirely appropriate to the current context! In 2010 too, the volume of innovations’ and societal transformations seemed to have accelerated.

As in 1903, and surely in previous centuries, we feel that we can simply not cope with the pace of innovations.

The Internet is not the first transformative innovation, but it seems different because of its sheer ubiquity – it is truly a global revolution -, its pace and its pervasiveness in everyday life.

In the end, I would really like to think that I am still “young and modern”.

I do like my iPad.

Still, I think the supermarket guy was a twat!

Happy New Year.

Have you heard of Viganella?

It is a small Italian Alpine village located 130km north of Milan. Its 185 inhabitants are presumably very happy to live in such a beautiful landscape, a few miles away from the lake Maggiore and from Zermatt.


All seems fine in Viganella… except that the village is located on the wrong side of a steep mountain: from 11th November to 2nd February, villagers cannot receive any direct sunlight.

Whilst this situation is presumably acceptable in Nordic countries, for Latin people, the lack of sun is terrible situation!

For centuries, villagers have accepted with great courage this odd situation: they were resigned not to see the sun for three long winter months… until recently, when ingeniosity stroke.

With an engineer friend, a local architect came up with a brilliant idea: why not build a giant mirror that would reflect the sunlight onto the village?

In 2005, with the support of Pierfranco Midali, the mayor of Viganella, 100,000 Euros were raised and the construction of the mirror started.

In 2006, the 40 square meters mirror (8m x 5m, weighting 1.1 tons) was installed above the village, at an altitude of 1,100 meters.

Operated by a computer that moves it along with the sun throughout the day so that it can lighten up the village!

As you can see on the picture below, the mirror functions well and enlightens parts of Viganella (in this instance, the square that is just in front on the church).

If, say, you organise a birthday party at home on Saturday at 2pm, call the mayor and ask him to position the mirror so that your garden can be illuminated for the next two hours! Simply brilliant.

The mirror has managed to draw the attention of millions of people around the world: hundreds of TV channels and newspapers sent their reporters to Viganella, thousands of tourists stayed in the local b&b to experience the “mirror effect”, and a rich American businessman even bought a house located a few yards from the mirror, just as a token of his enthusiasm for the project!

All in all, the mirror (and its instigators) not only brought utility to the villagers, but also fame to Viganella.

Think about it, this is also a formidable and ingenious PR campaign!

But what strikes me the most is the connection I see between Facebook and the Viganella’s mirror:

I went to Viganella in 2009 and spent time with Pierfranco, the mayor, who is a warm and generous man. He told me that the mirror had an important effect on the inhabitants’ mood and behaviour (take a look at the video interview in Italian at http://www.vimeo.com/13673156).

One example he gave me related to the Sunday Mass: in winter time, people usually go back home right after the end of it, as opposed to the summer. But when, thanks to the mirror, the sun shined on the church and the village square, people did stay outside to discuss with each other.

In other words, Viganella’s mirror is the physical equivalent of Facebook:

In both cases, technology enhances connections, contacts, interactions between people.

In both cases, people adopt the new technology in such a natural way that the “technology” itself disappears; it is its effect on private life and society at large that prevails.

Next time you visit Northern Italy, do stop by Viganella and knock the door of the city hall: Mayor Pierfranco Midali is used to welcoming visitors from around the world!

Back in 2002, that is before the 3G era, there was an understandable sense of anxiety floating in shareholders’ and investment banks’ boards of directors: when would the sheer level of investment needed for the deployment of this new technology start to pay off?

In the summer of that year, I was invited by a management consultancy to participate in a debate about the fate of European mobile operators.

Armed with sophisticated spreadsheets, the consultants were betting that only a few mobile operators would survive the approaching onslaught. Their key argument was that economies of scale would favour the largest operators since they allowed them to flex their bargaining power with handset manufacturers and network infrastructure vendors. In other words, cost advantage would be far more critical than value advantage (note that, already at this stage, some were sceptical about operators’ capacity to provide differentiated and un-commoditized services).

Although this argument made sense, almost 8 years later, the bloodshed has not happened.
However, with the current economic crisis, is it all going to change?
First, let’s look at the current situation.
The mobile telephony industry has reached a “Magic Square” :

Four ingredients have been crucial in the adoption of 3G:

1 The provision of high bandwidth connection is stable and geographically well-covered , through not only cellular technology but also wifi. Most of the users can surf the Net regardless of their location, which was obviously not the case when 3G was launched;

2 Tariffs on data/media transfer are flat and thus entice customers to . There is no more “next-month bill syndrome” which was prevalent when we used to pay digital downloads by the megabyte;

3 Handsets now have large, high-resolution and touchable screens, which is essential if one wants to use her/his mobile phone not just as a telephone;

4 Last, there is a rich and varied availability of useful content and services, mostly provided by third parties.

In the graph below, you can now see which industry sector (Mobile Network Operator; Handset Manufacturer; 3rd party) impacts on which corner of the square:

success of 3G in Europe

As you can see, the battlefield seems to be situated at the bottom left of the square. All parties are willing to provide digital services and content that are not only superior, but, if possible, exclusive. It is difficult to predict which of the three industry categories will end up with the largest share of the profit pool, and within each category, which companies will dominate – although at the moment, Apple’s App Store is ahead. That could change, but it will take time to conceive the best service or provide ongoing exclusive content with the right partner.

Interestingly, there is an area where changes have more of a short-term impact on revenue and market share: tariffs (the top right corner of the square).

The aim would not be to enter a price war that would solely be driven by discounts, but to conceive, in a creative way, new types of tariffs that would perfectly match the sheer variety of customers’ needs.

In other words, by launching a new breed of competitive and adequate tariffs, operators would in effect provide tangible added-value. In time of economic crisis, this move would constitute a real competitive advantage.

There are different ways to think laterally about tariffs plans (Chris Anderson’s Long Tail theory could be of help in some instances, as well as the “group buying” initiatives that flourish on digital platforms). But there is one area where most of Europe’s mobile operators have been reluctant to explore: Europe itself.

In a global and “digitized” world, where people can consume, share and connect above any physical frontier, it seems paradoxical that the tool that very much epitomises mobility does still function within a country-by-country system.

Think about the millions of Europeans who live close to borders, and thus tend to frequently cross them; think about the numbers of expats who keep in touch with family and friends; think about the number of people who have relatives outside their home country; think about the percentage of EU citizens who travel each year within our Continent and still need to log on their email or Facebook account… Surely, a unique pan-European tariff on calls and Internet access would be welcome, and could even, as a by-product, make landline phones obsolete (isn’t it a key goal for operators?).

Which mobile operator could be the first one to come up with such an offer?
Would shareholders be dubious about such a strategy?
How fast would competitors’ retaliation be?
Surely, it would all be about size and geographical coverage. You can already list the few operators that have substantial economies of scales and activities in numerous European countries.
Equally, aggressive operators could enter a price war – think about France’s Iliad, who was recently awarded the fourth 3G license, and who last year announced that they could cut consumers’ mobile phones bills by two!
In this context, and with the advent of 4G, rapprochements between Telefonica and Telecom Italia, TeliaSonera and Orange, or Vodafone and SFR, to name but a few, could be a first step…

8 years ago, the predicted bloodshed did not happen.

In 2010, will it be the same story?

There was a time when customers rightly expected shop assistants to provide superior services, that is to help them with the selection of the right good.

With the advent of search engines, some shopkeepers seem nowadays to expect their clients to do their online homework before they enter their premises. In other words, shops see themselves solely as mere distributors of goods, providing no expertise with regards to selection or comparison.

This is what I call reverse retailing: when customers have to rely solely on the Net to gather information, they simply end up doing the shop assistant’s job.

Am I exaggerating? Read the following real-life experiences:

First story: in a mobile phone store

A couple years ago, a few days after I bought an expensive smart phone, I came back to the shop to ask how I could transfer my address book onto the phone’s built-in memory. The very guy who had sold me the phone started to patronise me. And upon my insistence for clear explanations, he then lost his temper.

It is unbelievably unpleasant to be shouted at by a shop assistant, especially when he happens to be a spotty teenager. To his credit, maybe the use of anti-acne cream made his testosterone shoot up? Or perhaps he had lost his virginity the night before, and suddenly felt invincible. All in all, I was inches away from smashing his face – don’t worry about me, this thought was certainly triggered by the fact that he was short and skinny. In the end, I left the premises, confused and fuming, and looking at a retail brand I had respected for many years… with anger.


Second story: in a photo & video outlet

In this shop located in central London, I had the temerity to ask for the price of the latest Olympus’ shock/waterproof camera. The salesperson replied:

I need to have the name of the product; otherwise I cannot look in our computer system.

Of course, I did not have the damn name in mind.

I asked him: “surely, there are not so many waterproof Olympus digital cameras on the market. You sure you cannot easily find it in your ‘system’?”.

While I was doing my best not to loose my temper, he suggested with certain aplomb:

I tell you what: why don’t you go on Google to find the camera’s name?

What exactly was expected from me when I entered the shop? Showing up with printed pages of my research on Google Shopping pages? Or with a photocopy of the magazine advertisement where I first spotted the product in question?


Third story: in another mobile phone retailer

Once I had paid for an iPhone, the salesman, who had been thrilled by my propensity to buy such an expensive good without asking too many questions, suddenly refused to insert the SIM card in the handset. I naively thought that, like in the good old 20th century, part of the service included the opening of the carton box, the insertion of the SIM card, and the usual blabla on battery charging and initial experience with the handset. Well no, in a digital world, self-service prevails.

I ended up presuming that the shop assistant had studied artificial intelligence at the MIT, and that he was therefore far too intelligent to open a carton box.

Back at home, I almost broke the iPhone in anger since it took me ages to find out how to insert the SIM card. It was entirely my fault though – I should have been on the Net to look for explanations… and I would have discovered that, silly me, all I needed was a paperclip. As the cultured readers of this blog post know, there is a tiny hole on the side of the iPhone. Put a paperclip into it, and sesame opens. That simple!

Again, in all fairness to the MIT-graduated shop assistant, the basic task of inserting a SIM card was way below his intellectual capacities. It was therefore my duty, as a customer who, let us remind this, had signed up for a 18-month long contract, worth more than £900, to service myself.


Fourth story: in a car reseller

This time, before entering the store, I did do my homework and spent time researching finance options to buy a car. It looked like leasing was a valuable route… except that there were 7 options on the site. Unwilling to explore in details the minutia of leasing finance on my own, in front of a PC screen, I naturally decided to pay a visit to the local franchise… What a mistake.

The salesman bluntly refused to explain how the leasing options worked. And guess what he told me:

You need to go on our website. There is a dedicated section on leasing – you will see, it is very well explained.

With uncharacteristic magnanimity and patience, I smiled and told him: “Great. Will do. Thanks”.

In the end, I bought a car from a competing brand, and got a loan from my banker, a reassuringly physical person.


Last example: in an entertainment goods chain retailer

I had heard on the radio a new version of Miles Davis’ famous “So What” tune. While browsing at the Jazz section of this huge store in London, I asked the person behind the counter situated within, let me repeat again, the Jazz section: “I heard this new version of So What a few times on the radio recently. Do you know which artist covered it?”.

What’s the name of the artist?

– Erm… I don’t know, that’s my question.

How do you want me to find the track if you don’t know the name of the artist?

Because you are paid to be knowledgeable about jazz music, otherwise you would be selling, say… paperclips.



As in many industry sectors, the digital revolution happens not only because of its intrinsic benefits, such as always-on, international, instant, practical, cheap, comparable, etc, but also because of the sheer frustrations we experience in the quotidian of our physical world.

What is the point to go ”physical shopping” when the service can be in some instances so rubbish?

You would be better served by robots… Guess what, this is exactly what e-commerce is all about!

eCommerce is highly successful, gaining share of market… but surprisingly, some besieged shops now use the Internet as an excuse to provide less value, and lose even more market share!

If we extrapolate this reverse-retailing trend, we may end up having our high streets cleared of low-value retail chains. Then, what would remain is self-service businesses, such as supermarkets, and niche boutiques that provide genuine added-value experiences.

eCommerce could therefore trigger another retail revolution by helping with the revival of independent shops. What a twist this would be!

We used to be happy to rely on the advices of those experts working in record, fashion or electronic consumer goods stores. Bring them back, or you may perish!

L’innovation est un incroyable moteur de croissance.  Pourtant, par ces temps de crise, un pan entier de « l‘économie de l’innovation » en France semble avoir été oublié : les services numériques, un secteur qui englobe une grande variété d’activités, allant des réseaux sociaux en ligne et du marketing sur les téléphones portables, jusqu’aux technologies d’affichage électroniques, de la télévision sur Internet ou des jeux vidéos.


Or, la révolution digitale est d’une importance primordiale pour trois raisons.


Pour commencer, elle participe à la transformation rapide du monde des affaires : par exemple, les secteurs de la musique, du cinéma, de l’assurance, ou du tourisme ont du totalement repenser leurs stratégies et leurs organisations. Nous nous devons donc, en tant que nation, de maîtriser la problématique générée par la révolution digitale si nous voulons maintenir une économie en bonne santé.


Ensuite, la révolution numérique affecte aussi en profondeur la société en redéfinissant la vie quotidienne. La consommation des médias, l’amitié, l’éducation, la politique, l’expérience de la démocratie etc… Les mutations sont nombreuses et rapides, et ici aussi nous nous devons de comprendre et d’anticiper les conséquences sociologiques de ce nouveau paradigme, et donc de maîtriser les innovations en amont.


Enfin, sur le plan stratégique, dans le monde numérique, le champ de bataille n’est pas national, mais global, et il tend vers la prédominance quasi monopolistique de quelques entrreprises: Google dans les moteurs de recherche, Amazon dans le commerce en ligne, YouTube dans la vidéo sur internet,  Facebook dans les réseaux sociaux, ou Twitter dans le micro-blogging.


Or, le centre névralgique de cette révolution se trouve, comme pour celle de l’informatique dans les années soixante-dix, sur la côte ouest des Etats-Unis, et en particulier dans la Silicon Valley.


Nous avons certes de belles réussîtes françaises, comme Dailymotion, qui concurrence l’ubiquité de YouTube,  ou des jeunes et prometteuses entreprises comme Total Immersion (logociel de réalité augmentée), Linkfluence (analyse des medias sociaux) ou Pearltrees (systeme de classification des pages Internet).


Cependant, la France est à la traîne, comme beaucoup de pays européens.


Devrions nous en être préoccupés ? Certainement, non pas par chauvinisme déplacé, mais surtout à cause d’un véritable gâchis intellectuel. En effet, avec l’excellent niveau de nos écoles d’ingénieurs, des prépas spécialisées dans les sciences physiques et les mathématiques, des centres de recherches et des universités dans le secteur des technologies de l’information, nous avons, en tant que nation, un avantage compétitif patent qui est malheureusement sous utilisé.


Le problème en France, c’est l’innovation, et son financement.


Au delà des explications classiques, qui vont du manque d’avantages fiscaux pour le métier de capital risque à la préférence des étudiants pour des carrières prometteuses dans de grandes entreprises (qui peut leur en être grés lorsque le « système » n’est pas là pour supporter l’entreprenariat), que pouvons-nous faire pour changer la donne ?


Paradoxalement, la crise est peut être, dans ce cas, une source d’espérance. Explication : puisqu’elle est caractérisée pas une pénurie de liquidité, tant pour accorder des prêts que pour investir monnaie trébuchante dans des entreprises innovantes, le réflexe bien français de faire appel à l’état serait, dans ce cas précis, non pas une solution de facilité, mais créatrice de valeur. Rappelons à l’état son devoir de régulation, de « compensateur » de l’inefficacité des marchés, pour soutenir un secteur d’activité stratégique.


Concrètement, pourquoi ne pas créer un fond de capital risque qui serait financé par l’état, et qui n’investirait que dans des entreprises du secteur numérique qui ont leur siège social, ou d’important sites opérationnels, en France. Ce fond devrait aussi attirer des chercheurs et entrepreneurs étrangers, qui pourraient alors créer et développer leurs activités sur notre territoire. De plus, si une invention ou un brevet n’arrivait pas à attirer l’attention d’investisseurs privés, plus pour des raisons conjoncturelles qu’objectives, ce fond représenterait une deuxième chance.


Il apporterait une bouffée d’oxygène et une certaine pérennité alors que nous traversons une période instable et destructrice.


Le but du jeu ne serait surtout pas de créer une usine a gaz pour les planqués de la république ! La structure du fond devrait être légère ; sa réactivité rapide, son organisation professionnelle, dénuée de toute contrainte technocratique. La sélection des dossiers se devrait d’être transparente (pas de favoritisme, merci bien) et apolitique. Ses employés viendraient du secteur privé, et ses objectifs seraient mercantile : investir pour créer de la valeur pour l’investisseur de référence, c’est a dire l’état… c’est a dire tous les français.


C’est en investissant en temps de crise que l’on prend de l’avance sur la compétition. Cet adage est plus facile à dire qu’à faire, surtout en cette période d’endettement, lorsque l’investissement dans le long terme peut paraître superflu. Or, au milieu de cette crise créée par des dysfonctionnements purement financiers, c’est à l’état d’intervenir de manière ouverte et intelligente. Un fond d’investissement pour le secteur numérique serait une réponse éclatante et un pari pas si risqué qu’il n’y paraît sur l’avenir de la France.

After the hotel Everland, here is another unique and unbelievable experience some of you could enjoy soon.

Once again, this project is located on the roof of Le Palais de Tokyo museum in Paris. But instead of a hotel room, it is an exclusive restaurant.

Nomiya is an art installation conceived by Laurent Grasso with the collaboration of architect Pascal Grasso.

(photo: Kleinefenn)

This is a temporary, transportable dining room with a unique panoramic view over Paris and the Eiffel tower.

(photo: Kleinefenn)

Importantly, unlike the hotel Everland, this project is sponsored by a brand, Electrolux, and is currently “alive”: to book a lunch, a dinner or a cooking training session, visit the Art Home web site.

This is another example of lateral thinking – how brands can, besides the products and services they usually offer, provide a genuinely amazing and unique experience…


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.